Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Complaint Accuses Hunton & Williams of Dirty Tricks | Main | Federal Judiciary Braces for Possible Government Shutdown »

February 24, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e20147e2cb6a00970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Law Profs Urge Ethics Rules for Supreme Court Justices:

Comments

Ray Metz

The Romans summed it up best: "Judici satis poena est, quod Deum haste ultoren."

For professors with questionable motives, this translates: "It is punishment enough for a judge to have God as his avenger."

Louis

I think independence recusal on be half of a Supreme court justice should remain with the individual Justice. A justice should remain , at will, to determine if he or she has conflict with a case in which he or she has direct or indirect ties with the parties involved. The supreme court justices in our system are the creme of the crop individuals with sound moral turpitude and quality, so to undermine their ability to decide rather they , as individuals , should check in with colleagues to decide if rather they should recuse themselves , base on bias, is totally undermining our judicial system and should not be considered as trustworthy.

Randall Bart

I think I am more comfortable with the Supreme Court remaining independent.

Richard Brownell

Funny how these sorts of things only seem to be an issue when conservative justices are involved.

DrBeak

Separation of Powers anyone?

Amy Menkes Stoody

I spoke about recusal accountability recently on CBS radio; there is essentially no governing body to oversee our Supreme Court Justices and to guide them in looking not only to bias but even the "appearance of impropriety."

Former Chief Justice Rehnquist said in response to questions by Senators about the Scalia-Cheney duck-hunting trip years ago "[w]hile a member of the court will often consult with colleagues as to whether to recuse in a case, there is no formal procedure for court review of a justice in an individual case.". "This is because it has long been settled that each justice must decide such a question for himself.". What this means, essentially, is that The Supremes reign supreme. They are our model of conduct; without governance there most certainly will be the potential for abuse or perceived abuses.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements